I just want to point out that the HV chart is not designed for approach and landing (your shaded area would look very different). 50kt at 3-5 feet is ok for runway landing, but I would not like to be doing 50kt that close to the ground while landing on helipad. I have been taught the same way as you on my ppl course in EU and spent quite lot of energy to re-learn it during my further training in the states. Now I definitelly prefere constant angle approach with as smooth power changes as possible with loaded disc towards the end of approach. Pretty much going through ETL while getting into groung effect. That way I can avoid some possible suprises and maybe that is one of the reasons I have no problem to go from G2 to R44 an back...

GS - you make some very good points, a lot of the early accidents in R22's were due to a lack of experience with the helicopter type and some of its idiosyncratic behaviour. Robinson themselves have released hundreds of service notes around how to operate the R22 and R44 in light of the accidents they were seeing, two of the most noted being push overs and low G loading the disc and RRPM decay and the incorrect procedure to correct it.

Couple this to how a person was trained and how that person is as a pilot and accidents do happen. If all the accidents with the G2 were attributed to a single factor, say the fenestron, and pilots lack of awareness with these types of fans then the manufacturer would have acted.

Still too early IMO to draw any meaningful conclusions, apparently there is a 4 seater and turbine model on the cards so will wait to try one of those... :ok:

sotiras

I see no contradiction. The reports to date make no mention of mechanical failure. Therefore a fully operational machine has crashed. It may well be that particular handling is required (or certain flight conditions avoided) due to a design shortcoming (e.g. avoidance of low G pushovers in an R22), or it may be that the design needs altering to make it easier to handle the aircraft safely (e.g. adding tip weights to the main rotors of the R22). The early R22 was not generally crashing due to mechanical failure, it was due to handling errors (granted, it was particularly unforgiving of inappropriate handling). The same appears to be true of the G2. However, is it because the design is unforgiving, or inadequate training, or because people just aren't respecting it (again that comes under training), or a combination of factors - who knows? As I say, time will probably provide the answers and then the accident rate will reduce considerably. I certainly won't be buying one until it does.

@Reely

I am totally on nigels side. I don´t understand this left or right turning which pedal do I have to kick as well. :sad:

I flew both versions as well and can´t remember a mix-up. I was taught to kick the right (as in correct) pedal for lift off. :ok::D

Well these are actually two different szenarios:
The "H-V takeoff and landing" is definitely meant to be used as guidance for any runway takeoffs and landings. I've personally seen some big helo in Starvanger do exactly that H-V compilant takeof on Starvanger airport. Entering the hashed section of the H-V means that the pilot deliberately operates under circumstance "where a safe autorotation has NOT been demonstrated by the manufacturer", definitely a no-no for commercial runway ops.

The environment you are referring to is what my FTO called "approach to elevated helipad".
(we'd use a section of meadow raised 3 ft above the surrounding, app. 5 yards in diameter)
In this case all of them FIs insist that one travels along a straight line to the helipad, all H-V stuff is irrelevant, as one is meant to NOT need any excessive pitch or flare. The perfect approach is completed a good 30 ft before touchdown point, with regard to control input. They claim that would be the only safe way to approch a mountain landing zone, which typically is not providing any ground effect, and always running the risk of SWP.

The H-V compliant runway type is bullet proof as you always can enter flare and/or autorotation,
the mountain-LZ / elevated heliapd approach is inherently dangerous as you HAVE to be
in H-V constallations from where you cann't safely autorotate.

Of course we almost exclusively practize the helipad approach, as it requires much more precise planning and power control.

Good for you :D
From motorcycle riding I know that I do develop automatic muscle procedures. These are a PITA when, on vacation in Thailand, you get to ride a bike where neutral is not beetween 1st and 2nd but below 1st.

Of course it could well be, that I'm misjudging the issues when switching from left to right rotors, and them Cabri incidents were fenestron induced only.

My concern was that "waiting for a reason to alter pedal input"
(because pitch hand weren't coupled to power-foot as you and Nigel explained)
might be a less profound way of yaw control in a fenestron ship compared
to doing the counter torque work before the necessity to do so surfaces.

I think you slightly misunderstand my point ! I don't profess to have special ability or peripheral vision :rolleyes: When I take off , every time , I get the aircraft light on its skids and see the effect of pedal input .....before ..I take off.
This way I re aquaint myself with the rotor direction , can see what power I have available ...and also get a warning if there is any t/r problem whilst still being able to use friction to stop any radical moves . It has saved me possible serious problems more than once including once having lost t/r servo which I didn't notice during start up ( I know , I should have but I didnt !)
A reliance on predicting what's needed can make smoother flying ,but at the end of the day you have to be prepared to put in ANY pedal , and maybe a whole bunch of it if that's is needed , regardless of what you muscle memory tells you you should be doing .
Sorry , slightly off track as May not be relevant to this problem !

That's an interesting example. I raced motorcycles for eight years. Road racing, not dirt. Race bikes use a reverse shifting pattern from road bikes. So called "GP shift" has you pressing down on the lever for an upshift, road bikes are exactly the opposite. As you might imagine, the penalty for an inadvertent downshift in a race could be a crash! When I first started I was very concerned about this, but it was never a problem. Indeed, all racers I know jump onto any bike with any kind of shifting and unconsciously change "modes" in their brains.

I've never had the opportunity to fly a clockwise turning main rotor system, but I'd hope that after a few hours of check-out I'd be able to shift "modes" just as easily as I did on motorcycles.

Interesting discussion!

Amazing info, thx. :ok:

But that experience of you and Nigel with regard to rotor direction sort of contradicts chalmondleigh's post #871
His post was what triggered my curious research into Cabri yaw accidents.:hmm:

Well,
when i had my first flight in a helicopter with a different direction turning mainrotor, I pushed the wrong pedal as well.
BUT - if you stop doing things in advance and start to do reacting on the birds behaviour, its no problem at all.
Just be smooth on the controls and feel the bird - less stress for the aircraft - less stress for you ;-)

This is an interesting graphic (US Army)

http://www.guimbal.com/get/thumb.php...mp/t-sur-k.jpg

R22 doesn't fare well!

Hi maddmatt,

don´t know, why they put the Bo105 into the poor - area....
O.K., it´s coming down much faster than i.e. a JetRanger - but it could take quite a beating...
Did ones an AR with a run on speed of 30 kts (NVG-training)....
:O

Must just be due to the criteria the US Army used. The BO105 looks like a brick compared to the others in the very good half.

Having read up on the G2 my only comment would be usability, MGW is 700kg, empty weight is 420kg, so doesn't leave a lot (280kgs). On their website they show a woman putting a load of luggage into a G2!! If she is like my wife the pilot would have to weigh 30kgs!! :eek:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Cabri may be aimed more at the "girlfriend" than the "wife". :E :=

:O yes I think you are right, although if she packs anything heavier than a G String it might struggle to get off the ground...

I note there is no R44 on that chart, yet the price tag of a G2 sits smack in the middle of those of a brand new Raven I and Raven II. The R22 is a considerably cheaper helicopter.

Is this his an official US Army graph or adapted data (see the box on the right hand side)?

It was taken from the Guimbal website, so not sure just how accurate it is, I merely put it up as an illustration

I would have thought the best training helicopter is determined by what the student expects to fly next.

So, although the R22 was never designed to be a trainer, it may be the default consideration for someone progressing to R44/R66/B206.

The S300C makes sense for most other US helicopters (MDs, Enstroms, Bells, etc) and the G2 for most European helicopters (ECs, Gazelles, etc).

The little Cabri may be the future, but they owe Sikorsky a huge debt of gratitude for their dereliction of duty to the S300. The 'C' in particular is still a 'world class' helicopter.

Mind you, that may be what also prompted Enstrom to develop the new TH180. http://www.pprune.org/images/misc/progress.gif

R22 accidents since Cabri certification
 

GS-A


The Cabri was certified at the end of 2007 since when , according to the US NTSB database, there have been 225 R22 accidents resulting in 46 fatalities.

Foreign registered aircraft are shown but I spotted at least one UK fatal R22 accident that was not shown. The actual total may therefore be somewhat greater.

Looking at one of your earlier posts on this thread you do mention that of the 7 R22s which you have flown, 3 have been written off and included a fatality. An overall 43% accident rate and a 14% fatal accident rate does look overly impressive.


As you say in your earlier post, perhaps you should give the Cabri a try so that you can judge for yourself.

I'm not sure how I can judge for myself though? I've so far (touch wood) flown the R22 without incident and yet that is apparently a deathtrap. The only way I would find out about the G2 would be to inadvertently enter the same flight conditions as the unfortunate crashed G2s, and see how the helicopter and I react. I'd rather not take that risk if I am honest. Your figures for the R22 accident and fatality rate appear pretty scary in isolation though.

Interesting thing with statistics, unless you know the context behind them, they are generally meaningless. 225 accidents in R22's out of how many total flights flown in that period? What percentage were pilot error/lack of type knowledge, lack of training, general stupidity?

With all of the R22 bashing that goes on, I'd quite like to know the percentage of accidents per type relating to the number of airframes sold between Frank and Bruno's product.
Just because a Ford might have a higher accident rate than a Bugatti, it doesn't neccessarily mean you shouldn't drive one!

Absolutely right but the difference is that when you crash a R22, you (almost) die; when you crash a G2, you walk away on your feet.

Central S,

I get your point.

(However you are more likely to survive a road crash in a Hummer than in a Fiat 500 but people still buy Fiats).

So what is that down to then?

Is it improper training, pilot error, or is it down to the airframe itself.
Surely if the product was to blame, Frank would have resolved the problems.
Presumably mechanical failures are quite uncommon but I was wondering if the R22 is much more difficult to control when you're in a 'fix'?

One of favourite threads has now turned into a p!ssing competition.

Look, each to there own. I have soft spot for the 300, the 22 is difficult to fly for a modern frame, especially for a novice, but it is safe in good hands.

Can we please get back to just talking about the G2 on this thread.

.
With the arrival of ZK-HLU and ZK-IFH (s/n 101 and 102), there are now 21 G2 registered in NZ .
.

Guimbal Cabri G2 - thread
 

Cattletruck is clearly right...this is a 'G2 thread' not a pissing comp for the furtherest shooter & yes the Crapinsons (Robinson product) are safe in the right hands, yep great handling & maneuverability no doubt, for sure............till they shockingly come apart in flight, or something of an equally tragic failure occurs; only far too often :ugh: :yuk:

Grade 1 & BFR renewals coming up, looking forward to add a few more hours onto the cute pocket rocket Cabri G2 :cool:

Happy happy :ok:

OK so the ATO I am doing some type ratings at have a G2, I already have R22, R44 & S300 ratings and I was asked if I wanted to add the G2 to the list.

On first impressions I couldn't see the benefit, the hourly SFH rate is more than the R22 and only slightly less than a R44. It does look like fun to fly but I am still not sure what else it would give, would it help transition to something like a 120 or 130, which is the next on my type rating list?

Careful :=


Once you fly the G2, you'll understand just how dated the concepts behind every other piston powered helicopter are...... :eek:

Freewheel really if it is that advanced why does it have a ****e engine in it ?

Correct, carburetors are aviation stone age :ugh:

It needs an STC to upgrade to a FI Lycomming:
No icing,
no sloshing induced flame out in low-G (EHLE) or high spin rates (G-UIMB),
=> S-300C reliability revisited:ok:

Guimbal Cabri G2
 

the G2 is a sportier Ferrari of the Squirrel AS350 series :ooh: (especially the grey blades) :eek: magnificent handling characteristics, flying responsiveness is just WoW, auto's like a 47 :ok:.........BUT sadly (yes) it has a donk (reciprocating carbi'd piston engine) that belongs in a bludi Museum, along with the steam engines :{:{:{

Yep I'm all for re-engining this sweet Bird with a descant donk :8 diesel, light gas-turbine??? Subaru double overhead valved, computer VEMD multi point fuel injection, dual turbo's etc :ouch: :cool: :confused:


Happy Happy :cool:

.


For those who like rugby and helicopters :)

All Blacks captain Richie McCaw (1m88 and 105 Kgs)

He has around 100 hours on the G2 and will become CPL and FI after the World Cup when he will retire :ok:



http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2015/...3609285669.jpg
© Pacific Helicopters










.

.

Chinese Hainan Airlines Group has ordered a first batch of 5 G2 for the Hainan Aviation Academy.

.

Every rose has it's thorn. (Oh I do love an 80s power ballad...)


Supply I'm afraid, fuel injection may solve some problems at the expense of others and will do nothing to assuage the determined naysayers.


Now if you could come up with a modern turn key installation in replacement for all those carb and even injected lycomings, you'll have yourself a million euro winner on your hands. (Or after certifications costs, about enough for a Big Mac)

Well, w/o carburetor there'd be two accidents less on Cabri's slate. :ugh:


Basically true, for the casual observer.

However the other day I did learn just another great aspect about them S-300C's FI engines. When a friend of mine and I wanted to do some practize hovering we heard that the auxilliary (prime) fuel pump on the 300C is not working. With regard to the weather and especially the OAT of 10°C we were concerned how we were supposed to pour priming fuel into the manifold for the cold start. Mech said 'pah, just crank it'.
Turned out he's right! :E
No need to enrichen the mixture, 1/2" throttle + start = firing up like a charm.:ok:

I must admit besides my public teasing why on earth Bruno did pick that old carbureted engine for his otherwise great machine, I secretely thought, he might have anticipated troubles turning that cruel, air-pressure and pitch-lever and rpm controlled NON-electric FI engine into a turn-key starter. Automatically enriching the mixture on a carburetor - for cold starting by uninitiated personnel - appeared to be more easily doable, to me.

Fact is: the 300C Lycoming FI engine (apparently idling rich per default) doesn't need priming (=electirc fuel pump) for cold starting!
A little throttle + starter will do the trick.:D

So the (300C's) Lycoming with FI already ARE turn-key engines!

Surely the engine choice was one of, why try to change something that has been proven to work AND help keep costs down?

I am hearing some semi alarming news from a couple of operators in the UK. They are going to increase the hourly charge rate on the G2 and pretty soon as well! One already charges £340 per hour for TR's which is higher than a R22 and £120 less than a R44, this seems to be a real shame, surely as an operator you would want to be encouraging new students to be using your new G2 but pushing costs up past £340 will damage this IMO.

Wonder if the operating costs are higher then expected or is it just a case of operators trying to maintain profit margins :ugh:

Vertical Freedom, given your location, where do you get your renewals done in the G2?

.

Hello R101,
VF is from OZ : http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/483...ml#post8600669

.